Topic: Who's the worst type of manager?

[Uncle Che]

Who's the worst type of Western manager? The former Burger King manager who now keeps the foreign teachers in tow? What about the wannabe Bill Lumbergh type? How about the the Ho Chi Minh death camp warden wannabe who tells teachers what they can or can not do?  Any type I am missing?

[Mods-Rockers]

How about the khamic ex hippie who cannot hold a thought process for more than 22.0005 nsec due to frying the grey cells during the 60's with some phychotropic or other.

[samvimes]

The worst kind are the ones that licked arse to get their position, are incompetent, and are threatened by any type of professionalism/knowledge that would show them in a negative light.

[bomha]

Pschopathics who were promoted by Thais who think that farrang need 'agressive' management.

[Uncle Che]

ex-Burger King managers are very good at that aggressive management. They know how to sell a junk product at high margins while paying their employees peanuts and over working them. Isn't that what some of the schools in Thailand are doing?

[anyonefortennis]

Personally I can’t stand the type that stands over your shoulder watching what your doing, like a bloody parrot sitting on your shoulder…………

Aggressive managers are ok if they channel their aggression towards improving the work systems rather than bullying the teachers.

A good number of the managers over here are in positions that they would not have landed in their home country and as such are ill prepared and under qualified to undertake the job effectively. I should think a good number of western managers are ex-salesmen and have landed their jobs because they have the gift of the gab, rather than relevant experience and qualifications.

That said, none of the people I know over here come close to some of the twats I worked for back in blighty.

[hero]

The biggest problem with managers at schools is that they aren't managers.  They are nearly always "promoted" teachers, often selected for being good teachers or because they get along with the owners - neither of these qualities could be said to ensure that they would necessarily be good managers!

Being a good teacher requires a whle different set of skills from being a good manager, I'm not saying one can't be good at both, just that the two don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Being a "friend" to the owners is useful position to be in in any place of work, especially in a foreign country.  However, mix that with poor management skills and you will soon come under the suspicious eye of colleagues and subordinates, pretty much guaranteed that you won't have many friends on the team.

On the flipside, management is all about making decisions and taking responsibility for planning and organising - in this respect very few of the "managers" here are ever that (farang or Thai).  More often than not they act as messengers only, the few people at the top of the chain of command tend to make all of the decisions - even the decisions at the micro level!

My short career as a school admin taught me that it was a hopeless position.  I would spend time getting to know teachers and finding out what problems or concerns there were.  Unfortunately, I wasn't able to act on anything without extensive consultations with the boss (who had terrible organisational skills) - I couldn't win the respect of all the teachers because they saw me as someone who talked a good game but never acted on anything.  The boss would use me to gauge opinions, but never act until it was too late and we had a big problem.  I thought I could have made a difference, but it wasn't to be!

[anyonefortennis]

I think you've hit the nail on the head Hero, even if you have got the required skills to be a decent manager with the chain of command and decision making process that is in place at most schools/universities makes it damn near impossible to achieve anything.


Also your comments about good teachers being put in management positions is spot on, as was mentioned on a thread a while back there are certain positions that require professionals from that field, HR / counsellors /  marketing / public relations etc.

However schools are on a budget and have to make do, and there is also the fact that it is not what you know but who you know that will land you the job.   

[wangsuda]

On the flipside, management is all about making decisions and taking responsibility for planning and organising - in this respect very few of the "managers" here are ever that (farang or Thai).  More often than not they act as messengers only, the few people at the top of the chain of command tend to make all of the decisions - even the decisions at the micro level!

Been there, done that, and have the t-shirt to prove it. That is why I left management and went back to teaching. This is so spot on.

[hero]

Also your comments about good teachers being put in management positions is spot on, as was mentioned on a thread a while back there are certain positions that require professionals from that field, HR / counsellors /  marketing / public relations etc.

However schools are on a budget and have to make do, and there is also the fact that it is not what you know but who you know that will land you the job.

My mother (now recently retired) was a lifelong teacher in the UK.  She too would always "have a beef" with "the management", most of her issues seemed to be of the same ilk - that schools were not managed by managers, but teachers-cum-managers.  I guess that's just the way it is.

How many teachers could genuinely say they would appreciate "real managers" being brought into educational establishments, particularly if they weren't education trained or specialists in education.  That in itself would also breed resentment!

In Thailand, I guess the problem becomes more emphatic due to language/cultural barriers, but I guess it is in no way different to other countries and industries.

[wangsuda]

How many teachers could genuinely say they would appreciate "real managers" being brought into educational establishments, particularly if they weren't education trained or specialists in education.  That in itself would also breed resentment

What is needed is a professional manager who is familiar with education. Unfortunately, there isn't good money in that back in our home countries. In California (or at least in the school district I previously taught), our "managers" are called department chairpeople and it is an elected spot that no one wants. We aren't stupid, we're teachers; not managers.

[anyonefortennis]

Spot on again Hero.

I worked at a university in Sarf London for a number of years and they were in big trouble money wise (thanx in no small part 2 government policies of the time) in the end the VC cleared out all academics from management positions and replaced them with corporate bods, it caused no end of unrest and resentment..................although the ploy worked and the university has turned things around no end, in fact it started to improve around the time I left, coincidence?

[Pibthong]

   Managers I've dealt with in the States are usually degreed professionals; the more experience they have the better they are. The minority are the good teachers advanced to be assistant principal. One suburban high school of about 1,200 students had two such asst principals, ie, both were advanced from teaching positions in which they were excellent. However, they were anonymous. I barely remember their faces. I never saw them out and about. Maybe that's good but somehow I doubt it.
   In Korea asst principal is a prestigious, career-capping position awarded after some caliber of a teaching career. The asst principal has a huge desk and presides (looks important) over the main room of teachers and their individual desks, which is his (literally "his") only activity. The principals are the guys who know someone higher up. Korean teachers rotate yearly in managerial positions--they are interchangable parts who change nothing and do nothing of significance or even of importance except to keep the machinery of "education" operating year in and year out (mostly out).
   In Thailand, the Thai managers of proprietary schools are long time and loyal employees from the teaching ranks, which is why there always are timetable clashes & conflicts at the beginning of each year or semester. It also explains why nothing ever improves or develops in curriculum, quality of faculty, methods etc. Farang mangers carry the water for the school owners. Some farang managers do it shamelessly, others try to appear to be in charge but fool no one, as hero points out. At the government schools I see merit and management positions and responsibilities as having some nexus but it seems more haphazard than it should be. At the one university I've taught, Chulalongkorn, managers were secretive, at the center of pervasive and endemic office politics, and stiff and remote. The Chula managers talk a very good game of modernization, lifelong learning etc. However, on my first day at Chula the coordinator in my faculty said specifically to me that "we don't use the word progress." It didn't take me long to know and recognize why they don't.

[bomha]

A few years ago, I lived next door to a real, professional public school teacher who swore she'd never go into management.  She took a little departmental chair once for two years, but that was all.  In secondary schools there, an assistant principal spends several years only being a disciplinarian to troublemaker students.  She got an M.Ed. in administration, just to have the degree and the pay rise, but never even sat for the test to be a licensed administrator.  She enjoys teaching, and she is very good at it.  Her old boss moved to another school, and the new principal was a total failure.  She moved to the boss' new school and loves it their.

[blackmail]

The manager, who got his position by stabbing someone else in the back.  Or the manager, who will "look the other way," because she has two illigitamate faces to feed and can't worry about getting another job.

[Pibthong]

   I'd mentioned in Reply #12 how some farang managers are water bearers for ownership and/ or managment--shamelessly so, as I"d stated--and I'd like to give an example of such. The following are excepts from a letter sent to me by the head of foreign teachers at a proprietary school where I used to teach.
     
     "My role pertaining to foreign staff whether it is the whole staff, a department or an individual staff member has    always been to uphold and carry out (emphasis added) the Directors [sic] instructions and wishes. My role is to support and enforce school decisions, decisions made by the foreign administration team, the Thai administration team and ultimately the Director."
 
    Water carrier, "supporter,"' enforcer--what's the difference? I think this self-admission might well speak directly to the worst of all of the management problems at Thai schools, ie, that of the lackey, hack farang professional whore who is content to completely and entirely do the bidding of the school. The farang manager who several times each day begins his response and concludes his listening with those two notorious words."Yes, boss." 

[hero]

That was exactly the position I was in - I didn't want it and didn't enjoy it, so I quit at the end of the year!

Unfortunately, some people thrive on it and pretend to have power - they are among the worst types of managers!

[Mods-Rockers]

Pibthong
Whilst I fully agree that there are some dispicable managers out there (both Thai and Farang) you must surely agree that the duties and responsibilities described by your former manager as exactly the same and very, very similar to the duries and responsibilities of managers in every industry worldwide. the alternative is anarchy. A further responsibility of a manager is to ensure that adverse effects are mitigated or at the very least highligt when such upper echelon decisions might cause adverse effects to the people below the manager.

A fine wire balancing act is often required here and sadly thats not always something that many managers are either capable of nor willing to do. however if done correctly then for the most part everyone is happy, if done badly then normally no one is.

[hero]

I think it's fair to say though, m-r: other cultures invest responsibilities in their managers, encourage/reward good management and directors are prepared to sacrifice control over micro issues.  None of these things happen here - there simply isn't any opportunity for managers to manage here!

[Mods-Rockers]

totally agree with that in the majority of cases H

[Pibthong]

   It seems we might agree hero and M-R that owners, directors, rectors etc here want our English and obedience and little else, if anything else. This seems to be the strict rule in a foreign country that employs native English speakers.

   In other words, we're not working for Donald Trump--or Bill Gates et al. We' re in foreign countries dealing with foreign, Old World cultures, soecieties and their ages-old ways, which militate against us. Donald Trump, whom I dislike but can respect, as with the politicians I've worked for in Washington, demand loyalty. Yes, of course they do. In Old World countries, Third World countries, the populations from the elites to the peasants need to catch up with the times, as they must (we'd need to define loyalty, of course, eg, does loyalty mean always saying 'yes sir?').

   This willingness to transform from the old ways to the new ones is the standard by which a country defines itself. That is, a developing country is willing to begin to learn and pursue better treatment of foreign teachers to include with respect, pay and treat us us honestly, not mess with our money, begin to honor the rule of law, seek education reform and modernization, provide us with training, seek to establish and develop THEIR OWN professionalism etc etc. This is in contrast to the Third World country that fails or militantly refuses to pursue the above, which is what defines a Third World country as such in comparason and contrast to those countries that are or can be defined as developing countries. 

[Mods-Rockers]

Yes, I can agree with that tis a sad existence when you look at it that way, but sometimes, just sometimes I see a glimmer on the horizon that indicate a change on the way. Well hopefully!

[Pavlovsdog]

I spent a couple of months in 'managment'.   As others have pointed out, a Farang in Thailand usually has no real authority even if his jpb title is Manager.  I went back to teaching and have accepted the title of Head Teacher with great reluctance.  The only good thing about that title is that occasionally admin will listen to my advice (if it doesn't cost money they almost always will do what I suggest) and I can sometimes act as a buffer between admin and the teachers.

[Pibthong]

Pavlovsdog,
   Yeah, I spent time as Head Teacher and Lead Teacher. It was during that period that I'd been advised by the mangement that I was "in training." As I responded that "I don't train well," I never became a part of management. I never wanted it because I'd seen very clearly what being farang management was and is: Water carrier.

[Krungsri]

People have made some good points on this thread.  Yes, foreign line managers in Thai-owned schools probably do function more like supervisors than managers – perhaps like senior NCOs rather than officers.  That is because this is Thailand and Thai executives at whatever level have always been reluctant to share power with foreigners.  Especially so where a business has been built up by an entrepreneurial patriarch and his family – the case with so much of Thailand’s commercial sector, including private education.  In family-based businesses, power is usually retained within the family and, if it’s shared at all it’s shared with those whose loyalty is proven.  So the model is not like that of a corporation in the West taking on graduates and training them or hiring proven managers and giving them the freedom to propose and make changes that will benefit the company.

Foreigners who stay on as administrators in Thailand have presumably accepted their Thai bosses’ prerogative to withhold or extend “power” (to “empower” or not) and agree to fill a more supervisory or mediatory function.  It would only become a matter of concern if an administrator is called on to carry out an instruction that is clearly unlawful, or perhaps lawful but immoral (in the mind of the administrator).  In the former case the administrator has to consider the consequences; in the latter he/she has to consult his/her conscience.  Posters to websites can often, it appears, be quick to judge.

An administrator who is basically compliant (because he/she believes the employer and the organization are worthy of it) is not to be dismissed as immoral or craven (a “lackey”) on that account.  As an earlier poster said, a management ethos that challenged everything that comes down would be anarchy.  Likewise, not everything can be discussed among the stakeholders before a decision is taken, though consultation is usually a good thing.  It is also clearly a good thing if employers do listen to their managers.  At my school (Sarasas Ektra) that happens, but, after the listening, executive authority (and responsibility) still rests with the Director and his Thai admin team. 

(One of the first things we explain to new teachers is how the executive/management structure works in our school, so they know the extent of and limits to autonomy of the foreign administrators.  There is no need for teachers (or the managers) to have unrealistic expectations.)

Personally, I have found (the recently deceased) David Wyatt’s comments on the 19th century American advisor, Dr Samuel McFarland, worthy of reflection.  McFarland, writes Wyatt, “… exemplified the effective ‘foreign advisor’.  He was effective because he was always content to view his role as service, as an instrument of the Thai government in pursuing ends and policies which it alone could define.  McFarland was given a task to perform and he accomplished it.”  (Studies in Thai History.  Silkworm. Chiang Mai. 2004)

[hero]

(One of the first things we explain to new teachers is how the executive/management structure works in our school, so they know the extent of and limits to autonomy of the foreign administrators.  There is no need for teachers (or the managers) to have unrealistic expectations.)

Although in some cases, even with full understanding, this can lead to frustration amongst employees.  Culturally-founded expectations cannot be reset with a simple explanation.  Some people are more laid back than others, some people I suspect are innately unable to come to terms with many of the cultural differences between their home and adopted countries.

Similarly, even with the best of intentions, school owners often find it difficult to interpret the differing expectations of their foreign employees from those of their Thai employees.

It is an act of balance, the farang "manager" is often caught in the middle without the skills or the authority to make the right decisions to find the middle ground - disputes occur.  I guess the organisations that can minimise these dispute situations will be the most successful of those employing foreigners - that is a heavy responsibilty on a manager and requires a certain set of skills (some innate and some learned I suspect).  Even with the best manager in the world, if they have the wrong kind of personalities on either side of the divide it is going to be very difficult.

[Pibthong]

Krungsri,
   I have many reactions to your excellently thoughtful and analytical post. (I mourn the passing of David Wyatt, whom you quote, and have only the greatest respect for him and the many works about Thailand that he co-authored.)

   One question at the moment, as time is short: What made Dr. Samuel McFarland an "advisor" if he in fact performed the "service" of exclusively executing decisions made by the elites of Thailand? Is someone confusing the semantics of role and performance with that of one's title, or is the term "foreign advIsor" in Thailand necessarily identical to the meaning of the term "water bearer?" 

   Your post deserves much more discussion so I'll be back. As I said, presently I must literally, physically move on...  

[Pibthong]

Krungsri,
     You, I and a good number of other farang have gained much from reading the works of the late David Wyatt. Reading his knowledge, insights and experience in respect to Thailand and Thais helped me greatly to see and to understand the thinking (a kind word) of Thais in education.

   However, citing the instance of a "diplomat" in Thailand during the 19th century does nothing to help farang or Thais to know and to better understand the present world. For instance, during the 19th century there wasn't a World Trade Organization, or European Union, the USA of the present, a UN; a present-day Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Singapore etc.

   Since the end of the Second World War, most Old World countries instead became designated as Third World countries or, more recently, developing countries. Thailand is a developing (Third World) country. Thailand needs to change its decrepit Old World ways and backward Third World ways in order to develop into a modern economy, society and culture in the same way as other former Third World countries have had to change. Thailand and other Third World countries need to follow the example of the developed economies, such as S. Korea, Botswana; and of the advanced, hi-tech economies such as Japan, the older EU member countries, the US, Canada etc.

   In short, the culture of corruption, incompetence, rule by the elites, paternalism, cronyism, agrarianism etc must end. The Thai Rak Thai (Thais Love Thais) party and the "throw up the barricades" attitude and approach of the post-1997 economic collapse Thais must end. Resistance to radical change is the greatest impediment of all to the development of Thailand in all respects. 

   The attitude of both present Thais such as the TRT and of farang such as Dr. Samuel McFarland that the Old Ways must be preserved at all costs is not only passe'--it is self-defeating. That lesson was not learned in 1997 in Thailand, where the 1997 East Asia economic meltdown began. That the 1997 East Asia financial collapse began in Thailand was not happenstance or coincidence. Yet the reaction of the vast majority of the Thai elites has been to retrench and dig in their heels against the necessary change. Well, I'm afraid worse can come. There's already been a coup d' etat against TRT and its attitudes, beliefs and misbehaviours. What comes next?   

   Hopefully the next development in Thailand will be to advance into the developed world. The prerequisite would be to accept and to work cooperatively with farang. We are not the instrument of the Old World and its decadent ways.

[Krungsri]

Thank you Phibthong for your comments and questions. 

I won’t take issue with your theory of development, noting your reference to Korea, Japan and Singapore as models in this part of the world.  I am conscious, though, that these are nations with a very different history and experience of imperialism and war in the 20th century.  Thailand has not experienced the catharsis of colonialism and war to anything like the extent of those others, so there is less sense of urgency about doing away with the old and ushering in the new.  Nevertheless, I defer to your wide reading and sustained reflection in these areas and don’t wish to take issue with your general argument.

A corrective note, though.  McFarland was not a diplomat.  He was a missionary.  I don’t have Wyatt’s article at hand right now, but from memory McFarland came to Siam in about 1860 and left in the late 90s.  He was one of those dedicated American missionaries who gave unstinting service to Siam in the reigns of Rama IV and Rama V.  Dr Bradley is probably better known.  Among other things, McFarland founded the first bilingual school of the modern era in Siam (Suan Anand School in Thonburi, 1879) and, though a missionary, he agreed to the condition (prescribed by Rama V himself) that no Christian doctrine be taught there.  Eventually, politics and a bit of bureaucratic confusion resulted in McFarland’s marginalisation and he finished his tour here as a textbook writer.  He left Siam after 40 years, perhaps a disappointed man, and died within a year or so of his return to the United States.

Why did I mention him in the context of a discussion on the limits of foreign management in Thailand?  Probably because he was an exemplar of the educated and gifted foreigner who genuinely wanted to help the Thai people and did so.  He accepted the fact that trying to impose his view of the world on his hosts was neither appropriate nor effective.  Maybe he’d tried it in his younger days and had come to realise how futile it was.  And yet, knowing he had gifts that he wanted to share, he continued to do his best in the knowledge that the Siamese leadership had to be the ones to set the course and decide how it would be best pursued.  He could only advise and then, following the decision, administer within the limits that had been set.

It’s not quite the same as “water bearing”.  In Thai village life, to my understanding, carrying water from the well is/was a task given to young girls.  It is a menial though absolutely essential task.  It is not regarded as being in any way dishonourable, but it is not a leadership task.  Even within the limits that a foreign manager voluntarily accepts in Thailand, his work in management or administration is by no means menial.  For this kind of manager to be faithful to his contract and to steer a beneficial course between the needs of those who employ him and those who depend on him for support and leadership he must have a realistic understanding of what is possible and what is worth pursuing.  This is not easy; it requires a degree of insight and sensitivity to go with a focus on what is essential.  Hence it is easy to fail or, perhaps, to be seen as failing.

Having said that, I think (in fact I’m sure) it is quite possible to succeed.  Cultural sensitivity is critically necessary though. 

Incidentally, there is a reference to Dr McFarland, as well as to Dr Bradley and other foreign missionaries in 19th century Siam in Ken May’s article in a recent edition of the Bangkok Post.  See http://www.bangkokpost.com/education/site2006/vinv1406.htm.  The author, Ken May, an American teacher, was interviewed by ajarn.com at http://www.ajarn.com/Hot%20seat/hotseatkenmay.htm.
 

[Krungsri]

"noting your reference to Korea, Japan and Singapore as models in this part of the world.  I am conscious, though, that these are nations with a very different history and experience of imperialism and war in the 20th century." 

Oops...slip of the pen.  I meant Singapore in reference to war and imperialism; Korea and Japan more experience of war (though Korea had been colonised by Japan, hadn't she?).  The latter also got massive US financial assistance too, didn't they?

[Pibthong]

Krungsri,
   Thanks for your kind words about my "wide reading" and "sustained reflection" concerning things Thai specifically and East Asian in general. I, too, respect your longevity in Thailand, your wonderful Thai wife, the fact of your adult children and even your position of a manager in education. However, while I'm about to buy larger hats, let me point out that I've been living and teaching in Thailand for the past nine years, so I have a great deal of real life experience. (I wouldn't want any reader getting the impression I might be a monk, reading and reflecting only.) First and always there's the living of life in Thailand, then the reading and then the reflecting--but always the experience of applying what I read and interacting on the basis of the reading and reflecting; and reading and reflecting on the basis of the totality of the experience.

   Allow me to reset your frame of reference. The frame of reference is not that of a farang educator trying to 'impose' his view of the world on his hosts. Before I came to Thailand (and before that went to teach English in S. Korea) I read the excellent book by the China expert Jonathan D. Spence, "To Change China," in which Dr. Spence eloquently describes the painful futility of Western missionaries and others in 19th century China, Westerns who for decades suffered thru their inability to remake China into a place in their own image. Prof. Spence is a specialist of the period.

   The correct frame of reference is that Thailand is one of approximately 100 "Developing" countries. Since the advent and advance of the Industrial Revolution, which enabled about three dozen countries to become what presently are called the "advanced" economies of the world, other laggards or self-satisfied Old World countries have decided that wealth, a high standard of living and a high quality of life--to include education--aren't necessarily such bad things. So for the past 50 years the developing countries have been and are, well, developing. The progressive world has imposed itself upon the slow and the smug multiplicity of Old World countries, their economies, societies, cultures, their civilization. This is the accurate and true frame of reference vis-a-vis farang and contemporary Thailand, especially in respect to education in Thailand.

   No farang teacher goes home a broken man, as it were, because of the fact that the Thai elites resist the Thai peoples' need and passion to develop, to progress; to advance. For you to write that Dr. McFarland returned to the USA after 40 years in Thailand "perhaps a disappointed man" who, moreover, died a year later ( ! ) is a wrong cultural and social interpretation. Wouldn't it seem more reasonable to deduce that the Thai-compliant Dr. McFarland instead returned to his native country after two score years in Thailand as an elderly man who wanted to die among his own family and native surroundings? To be interred in his own native soil? I doubt that it took all of 40 years of presumably being bashed about Thailand for the missionary Dr. McFarland finally to come to his senses, ie, to realize the futility to all of the many and endlessly unsuccessful endeavours to change Thailand. You yourself point out that the late Thailand specialist and author David Wyatt described Dr. McFarland as a compliant accomplice to the 19th century Thai elites.

   The broken man argument, if there is one, would instead apply to Dr. Thaksin, who recently was deposed from his prime ministership and remains in exile from his native land. Dr.Thaksin and his Thai Rak Thai (Thais Love Thais) party, founded in 1998 and first elected in 2001, have made such a mess of Thailand that a military coup d' etat intervened on Sept 19th to preclude TRT's sending of organized thugs against a scheduled Sept 20 anti-government rally to create the violence that would have brought a declaration of a State of Emergency by Thaksin and dictatorial rule.

   Please stay with me as the matter of farang managers of education in Thailand intertwines with Thaksin and the Thai Rak Thai party and the coup. Thailand was the epicenter of the 1997 East Asia economic meltdown. The 1997 East Asia financial collapse, which began in Thailand, did not begin here due to happenstance or coincidence. The wild and uncontrolled and unregulated corruption, greed, swindling, scheming, cheating, bamboozling during a period of great growth and prosperity in Thailand precipitated the 1997 financial collapse, which nearly had global ramifications as well.

   Rather than the Thai elites learning that they had much to learn about creating and managing a deveoping economy, society, culture and civilization, Thaksin and TRT came forth to resist modernization, the rule of law, the system of checks and balances in government, prudent managment of economic growth and wealth creation, creating a new paradigm of education and, indeed of the whole of Thailand. TRT wouldn't do the things that had been done in Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore etc. No, TRT was organized to resist change, to fight it, and to oppose the intrusion of the modern world into Thailand.

   Item: When Thaksin's license to kill in the name of drug wars was criticised by the UN as an abuse of the rule of law, due process, human rights etc, Thaksin's response was that: "The UN is not my father."

   Item: When the Thai press/media and the groups of Thai civil society asked Thaksin about his strangling of democracy, Thaksin's response was that: "Democracy is not my goal."

   There are many more items, a Bill of Particulars, as it were. (Read  the Junta's recent statement.) The TRT resistance to modernization is the spirit and often the letter of what Thai owners and/or managers in education require of their farang operatives. The elites of education in Thailand require that only the 19th century Dr. McFarlands may apply or be considered for positions of management, supervision, direction in education in Thailand. This is the core of the problem. Indeed, Thaksin and TRT had about five Ministers of Education during their five years of esconcing an innovatively reactionary government. One shameless TRT MoE called the learner-centered classroom "buffalo learning." I rejected the invitation of Thai owners of education to become a coordinator, manager, assistant director--whatever title--because of this intransigence on their part. I've seen too many buffalo owners and buffalo farang managers in education in Thailand to want to join their number.

   The only farangs in education in Thailand who after decades in Thailand return to their native countries in disappointment or feeling a vacuum within are those who spend many years carrying the water alloted to them by the Thai owners/senior managers of education in Thailand. My conscience remains clear because I prefer to teach Thai learners, to teach that which the learners know they need to know to live in the IT economy of the present and future. I am pleased to be able to continue to teach to my Thai learners the values of human rights, democracy, the ways and means of developing a wealth-creating and fair economy, a society that has a steadily improving standard of living and quality of life; the need of a new paradigm of education in Thailand and a new paradigm for a developing Thailand.

   When I do return to my native land--whenever that may be--I can expect to be an even more pleased and satisfied person than I am and always have been in Thailand. Maybe by that time Thaksin shall have been allowed to return to his native and, no thanks to Thaksin and TRT, developed country. And, perhaps the resistance to change that Thaksin and TRT embody shall long have been overcome in education in Thailand and throughout Thailand as a whole. Let's throw out both the buffaloes and the bath water!      

[Pibthong]

Krungsri,
   Thanks for your PM and I look forward to your response after you return from your present travels.

   I would add to the above posting that China has changed, hasn't it? My China History prof at university liked to note that in the US people think in decades while in China they think in centuries. In the modern world, ie, since the Industrial Revolution, thinking in centuries has tended to make one slow and stubborn, not to mention smug and sefl-satisfied. Now China, having learned a hard lesson since circa 1830 to recent times, is rushing headlong into the contemporary world. China's rate of growth and pace of change seems to be its greatest challenge. The English teaching market in China certainly is rich.

   We see this hard learning in education in Thailand and in Thailand in general. During the 1990s Thailand rapidly expanded its economy. Bilingual education came into being, in addition to the international schools. The incompetence and greed of Thais led to the 1997 economic and financial bust. Then, with the consequent advent of the anti-farang Thai Rak Thai political party, Thailand went into full reverse. The coup has halted the reversal of direction in Thailand but the country's future remains an open question.

   Still, if you think that there's one particular farang teacher in Thailand who is "trying to impose his view of the world on his hosts," which you properly describe as "neither appropriate nor effective," you need to read this site and its many posts on its many threads more and better than you say you have been doing.

   Further, the Economist magazine has done two cover stories on Thaksin and Thai Rak Thai. In one piece in 2002, the question was posed on the cover: "Thailand's Thaksin: Tycoon or Thai Con?"  The second piece, also on the cover about two years ago, referred to the "dinosaurs" that own the Thai economy and who also run the Thai government (until recently).

   So, are you really talking about one (1) farang who is "trying to impose his view of the world on his hosts?"
 
   While no farang I've read at TeflWatch or have met in Thailand is IMO trying to impose his view of the world onto Thais and Thailand, it does seem that so many farang who seriously come to Thailand to teach are instead met with bad treatment from Thai owners of schools. (My present school is one that does not do so.) Then there are the present developments of the new rules and regs coming out of the MoE.

   If anyone seems to be targeting another, it doesn't appear to me that it's ever been a case of the farang trying to zero in either paternalistically on, or, against Thailand. We try to teach English but we too often get a bad time from Thai owners of schools who are greedy and/or corrupt or owners who too often cite their culture and traditions. Who's being inappropriate and ineffective?


   

[anyonefortennis]

Pib,

I do think you simplify the 97 crash a tad, I rather think it was a combination of many things, including;
1.   Mexican peso crisis
2.   fall in investor confidence
3.   sharp down turn in export growth rate especially damaging due to the large scale investment in the export sector financed by short term         external borrowing
4.      dodgy investment decisions based on extrapolation of past trends
5.   small foreign exchange reserves compared to short-term external liabilities
6.   and of course the lose regulatory environment also played its part - especially in the collaspe of Finance One.

[Pibthong]

anyonefortennis,
   Thanks for your comment. However, my posts to this thread intertwine the political economy of Thailand and education in Thailand, with a focus on farang managers at Thai schools.

   If you want to discuss in detail the East Asia economic meltdown of 1997, a financial collapse that originated in Thailand, please PM to me as I'd be more than pleased to discuss the specifics of the meltdown and especially why the catastrophe began in Thailand. For example, you omit the factor of the difference of interest rates between Thailand and the U.S. and other major economies of the West in general. PM to me...

   Meanwhile, do you agree that presently Thai owners of education want only the 19th century Drs. McFarland as their farang coordinators, managers, supervisors etc?

[Pibthong]

   No one I've read at TeflWatch has pointed out or mentioned that Thailand does not have on anyone's ratings or listing one university included in the 100 best universities of the world. Indeed, not in the best 200. And guess what, not among the best 300. Reactionary Thai proprietary owners of Thai K-12 schools and the boneheaded Thai education bureauracy at the MoE are responsible for this. Sharing mightily in this shameful and negative reality are farang managers of education at all levels of education in Thailand. In this, the IT 21st century, it tragically and pitifully remains that only the Drs. McFarland need apply for farang positions of management in Thailand.

   I should note that in rankings and listings that forcus on universities in East Asia Thailand fares better. This however, is a regional universe. Globally, Thailand's best regarded universitys within Thailand and regionally don't hack it. Again, hugely generally, 'congratulations' go to farang managers of education at all levels of education in Thailand. You couldn't be doiing a worse job, except to the Thai owners who pay you. 

[Mods-Rockers]

To be fair Pibthong, you cant have it both ways. Only a few days ago you were stating that these managers were little more than water carriers, yet now you seem to be expecting them to be workers of minor miracles!
I cannot, for the life of me, ever remember seeing a farang manager who was able to do anything worthwhile for any length of time due to being hamstrung at every stage by those above him, and sadly also being shat on by many of those below him (farang teachers) as well, its a job that only a fool who thinks only of his wallet and not his self esteem would take on and keep.

[Pibthong]

Mods-Rockers,
   My statements that farang managers of education in Thailand are water bearers and that globally Thailand lacks any respectability in education, especially higher education, are entirely consistent. The point of course is that farang managers, in return for things such as the school providing you with a car for your own 24-7 use, are nothing more than Dr. McFarlands. Consequently, education in Thailand continues to fail the Thai people and negatively affect the region and world. It begins with the Thai elites themselves which are assisted by compliant farang. The statements are consistent.  

[Mods-Rockers]

Let me pose you a series of simple questions here:

Whar do you think would be the employment putcome for a farang who was employed in any manigerial position within Thai education (mainstream) who tried to enforce a more western styly of managements?

What do you think the Thai employers would do when they see transparency suddenly rear its ugly head and thus many of the under the table money spinners suddenly disappear?

What do you think the ordinary Thai administration would do when suddenly confronted by a farang boss who insisted that they start to; 
A) work for their wages?
B) even worse work with a level of competence that at least attempted to emulate those shown by their western conterparts?

Exactly how many nanoseconds do you really believe such a manager would last?

You see the thing with being a water carrier is that sometimes you spill a drop, that little bit of wet floor may well  trip up the unwary and thus cause a minor change! No amount of western high handedness will change this country, change MUST come from within, its out job as teachers and indeed water carrying managers to plant little acorns that may flourish and then may grow into sturdy oaks of educational change.

Dont get me wrong Pibthong, I totally agree with you that the system here is up shit creek, has been for a long time and will no doubt be there for a long time to come. What I disagree with is the assumption that a western manager can shovel all the shit away and make the creek run clean. the people who put the shit in the creek can maybe do it, but to seriously mix some metaphors here Thailand has been shitting in this creek for a very long time and rome was not built in a day!

[Krungsri]

Back from my travels and happy to see that this thread has continued and diversified a bit.  It’s moved well away from the simplistic caricaturing that it began with, but I suppose it had to begin somewhere.  Assuming that we have to have farang managers in some Thai schools there’s something to be said for trying to come to some consensus on what they can actually achieve, how they can do it effectively and appropriately and whether this is possible without selling out reasonable ethics and losing the right to anyone’s respect (let alone their own self-esteem).

An apology to begin with.  I said in an earlier posting that Dr McFarland “accepted the fact that trying to impose his view of the world on his hosts was neither appropriate nor effective”.  Phibthong seems to have understood this as a personal reference.  It was certainly not intended that way.  In fact I only realized Phibthong had taken it that way when I was catching up on postings this morning.

There was no one in my sights when I wrote that comment.  The model of the “imposer” I had in mind (and that only as a “shadow” for McFarland) could only have been the evangelizing salvationist model of the 19th century Christian missionary.  McFarland had obviously stepped away from that, perhaps as a forerunner of the “servant leader” model – one in which a person brings his/her skills and attributes to the service of a worthy cause without looking to control it. 

As Phibthong rightly points out, in this model, leadership/management can potentially become submerged in service.  Does this make one servile?  Not if the manager (we’re talking more about managers than leaders in the Thai context) believes he/she is still contributing to a worthy cause and has the freedom to opt out if the cause becomes unworthy.  I sense that Phibthong and a few others regard Thai educational management generally as irretrievably dishonest and incompetent.  I would suggest that is exaggerated and unfair.  It may seem a cop-out to cite the Thai cultural context (as if it’s something static and impermeable), but nevertheless there is a cultural and mental context and it has to be negotiated with care.

Of course farang managers in Thailand (or in the West) can be enticed by salary and benefits – the 24/7 car has come up a couple of times, I think – but normally a person in a management position anywhere expects a decent package (and a car is often a part of it).  And it’s hardly a temptation confined to Thailand for a manager or any employee to sell his soul for attractive rewards.  But we don’t usually assume, do we, that a manager with an attractive package must have sold his soul in order to attain it?  I hope not. 

I think Phibthong is being a bit hard on poor old McFarland.  I don’t know what others think of McFarland as an exemplar.  He was a mid-19th century missionary after all.  I suspect he was rather enlightened for his time, and I’m pretty sure that this was David Wyatt’s view too.  It seems unfair to represent McFarland as just an Uncle Tom and those who are prepared to concede executive authority in Thailand to the Thais as mere Stepan Fetchits.  But I guess this is something on which we have to agree to disagree.  In my view McFarland was an honourable man who did what he could within the constraints of the environment.  He achieved a certain amount that was visible.  What was not visible we don’t know, but I suspect he was regarded by the ruling elite and the small but growing professional and commercial classes as a friend and wise counselor.  If so, then he probably had a considerable and beneficial impact.

One is influenced by one’s own experience and we make our judgements accordingly.  I like the way Phibthong has tried to contextualise the management question in the broader socio-cultural-economic context.  This seems a constructive approach to pursue – a macro approach within which each micro-situation can be considered, but the judgements come back to our experiences, our understandings of how things ought to be, our vision of what is possible and how we believe stakeholders can and should relate to each other. 

PS Last I checked (a year ago?) in the Shanghai Jiaotong University list of top universities, no Thai university was represented, but in the Times Higher Education list, Chulalongkorn came in about 150th from memory.

[anyonefortennis]

Apologies for going off topic a little, but should we really expect any Thai university to be in the top 100 in the world?

From this region I suspect that Japan (Tokyo Uni & maybe Osaka), Singapore (NUS and perhaps Nanyang Technology Uni) and Hong Kong (HK Uni) are the only places that would have any universities on the list, I doubt that even Malaysian universities make the grade (although perhaps USM may sneak on it in the high 90’s, but I doubt it).

I don’t think it’s right to condemn all that is Thai due to the fact that a 3rd world country doesn’t have one university in the top 100. Perhaps it would be better to applaud the few really class Thai researchers and encourage younger students to embrace creative and critical thinking, to help them ‘out of the box’ as it were. 

Maybe if we all put more energy into what we can achieve, rather than banging on about what we cannot, we may just be able to provide a few more students with the ability to become the researchers of the future, and given that most ranking systems are based in part on research achievements, thus help Thai universities creep up the ranking systems.

Perhaps what we, as EFL teachers in Thailand, should do is concentrate our efforts on modernizing, not Westernizing, English teaching, combining the new with the old.

It is not only Thai people who resist change, it is human nature the world over.

Apologies for the digression. 

[Pibthong]

Mods-Rockers,
   We agree entirely. (I don't know why we're taking up posting space and time, but I'm not complaining.) Yes, all starts and ends with the nationals of a country. The farang manager must be a Dr. McFarland. The foreigners can only do as we discussed, that is, teach and work each day over a long period to slowly and  gradually affect change to education in whichever 3rd World country it is we're teaching. I mention in previous posts to this topic that I'm pleased to plant my acorns by teaching year in and year out, which I've done in Thailand for 9 years now. So, yes, we agree.

anyonefortennis,
   Agreed, I'd be surprised to see a 3rd World country place a university among a legit ranking of the best 100 universities of the world (or the best 200 or 300 etc). Yes, I point out the fact about Thailand so that Thais resistant to change can get a blast of reality. Yes, human nature is conservative, but Asians are even more conservative than farang who, after all, initiated the momentus Industrial Revolution and its consequences to the present and which still are continuing. The New World is more open to new ideas than is the Old World. Yet, as I mention on this and other threads, Thai parents express their desire to me (and others who've posted to this site) to have their child(ren) educated in the Western innovative and creative style, history and tradition. Again, one needs to know that planting acorns, as it were, is the best we can do, so we do agree in these matters. 

[anyonefortennis]

Pibthong,

Yes, it would appear that we are in agreement on this matter, and long may we all continue sowing the seeds of change.

Thailand will change, although maybe not noticeably in our life time.

[Pibthong]

AFT,
   I don't quite remember at the moment, but there has to be some old Chinese saying that applies--something about a snail or water flowing over a rock for hundreds of years, ie, something that references the slow but inevitablely changing reality. It's encouraging to know however that things move a hellovalot faster in the modern world than they used to during past ages, eras etc.

[Mods-Rockers]

Pibthong, as I remember it, it was water dripping on a rock will bore a hole! well if thats the rate of change then farangs will have jobs teaching English here for a good few generations to come.

[Pibthong]

Mods-Rockers,
   I have a cartoon (from the USA) that has a frustrated looking guy with the caption, "God put me on this earth for many reasons. Right now I'm so far behind I will never die."
I think that might apply as to the rate of changing the decrepit ways of the Old World!

[anyonefortennis]

I think the Thais would do well to remember one of Warhol's sayings, it might speed the process up a bit;

"They say that time changes things, but you actually have to change them yourself."

[Pibthong]

anyonefortennis,

   A belated "well said." Somehow this post escaped my attention until today. Attitude and willingness not only to accept change as the only constant in life needs to be accompanied by some measure of resolve to initiate and pursue change.